Loyola University President Impresses With His Critique of Walter Block
I truly wasn’t going to get involved in this issue, primarily because it will undoubtedly sow seeds of discord in the comments. In the NYT article on Rand Paul, the writer claims that Walter Block thinks slavery “wasn’t so bad.” If you know Walter and how he talks, and then you read that phrase in context, you will understand that the writer completely mischaracterized him–Walter was rhetorically trying to emphasize just how bad the involuntary nature of slavery was. (It’s possible that libertarianism is so foreign to the NYT writer that he didn’t think he was misrepresenting Walter.)
Regardless of whether it was fair or not, Walter said those words, and they ended up in the NYT. So of course the president of Loyola University (where Walter teaches), Kevin Wildes, is going to throw Walter under the bus. (Just like Steve Landsburg was all alone during the Rush Limbaugh “slut” incident.)
Yet the guy surprised me. Wildes’ letter to the school newspaper was so ridiculous in its criticism of Walter that I have to draw your attention to it. Tom Woods does a magnificent job blowing it up, but I want to focus on one line in particular that Tom didn’t address. Here’s Loyola’s president explaining what was wrong with Walter’s views about slavery:
Dear Editors,
One of our goals as an academic institution is to encourage people to cultivate critical thinking. You can imagine my dismay when reading the Sunday New York Times and I found remarks by Dr. Walter Block.
In the Jan. 25 article “Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance”, Dr. Block made two claims, one empirical and one conceptual, that are simply wrong. First, he made the claim that chattel slavery “was not so bad.” “Bad” is a comparative measure that, like every comparison, is understood in a contrast set. My initial question was where is the evidence?
Dr. Block makes an assertion but gives no evidence for his assertion. [Bold added.]
I am speechless; I am without speech. The guy’s acting like Walter wrote a Letter to the Editor of the NYT. No, Dr. Wildes, Walter was quoted (very briefly) by a reporter writing an article on Rand Paul.
To complain that Walter “gives no evidence for his assertion” is like me saying, “Dr. Wildes says he opposes slavery but never fought for the Union.”
Oh yeah, then Wildes goes on to point out that Walter should oppose slavery, what with his being a libertarian and all. But I don’t want us to lose focus on his first complaint. That’s way more impressive.
Any attention brought to libertarianism is positive news, because it’s always contentious. It would have been worse if the NYT never uttered a word about libertarianism, Rand Paul, Block, et al. But they have, and this augments the groundswell of sentiment against govt and its sycophantic purveyors of disinformation.
His f n book is defend in the undefendable. One needs only to know anything more than nothing at all about block to know what’s up. In fact have they ever read any economics whatsoever?
But otoh how can we do anything about it?
Prez has to c.h.a. hes talking to even dumber notional audience. He may even be a snake in the grass. But if we think he’s dumb why would he care?
As I have pointed out, while we libertarians fuss and worry ourselves to death about whether bringing a defamation action against someone with whom we are arguably in contractual privity (a college president to a professor) because it might violate the non-aggression principle, it never ever dawned on any of us that slavery violated the non-aggression principle.
So did the civil war. I ponder how many years of slavery someone would have traded in exchange for a peaceful abolition. I don’t think the nyt has principled libertarianism in mind when they slander libertarians.
The civil war had both initiations of force that violated the NAP, and defensive uses of force that did not.
And?
That’s it.
“To complain that Walter “gives no evidence for his assertion” is like me saying, “Dr. Wildes says he opposes slavery but never fought for the Union.”
”
No one with that much education is as stupid as Dr. Wildes’ behavior displays. This is a campaign against libertarians. They set out to fool the uninformed. Is it so hard to win an argument honestly?
If you are not arguing against your opponent’s ACTUAL views, I’d contend that you have already lost.
My guess is that Wildes doesn’t know/care about libertarianism one way or the other. My understanding of this situation is that after Walter was quoted saying something controversial, we got the usual schtick of students and other faculty feigning moral outrage that someone with such evil views could work at their university, and sent letters demanding Block be censured (I believe he has tenure and can’t be fired).
So the President, to placate the bloodthirsty mob, HAS to come out with something like this. Ain’t the first time, won’t be the last. Good for Walter for not backing down. Again.
Block is one to say controversial things. But, it is only controversial because so few are willing to say it.
A succinct summary of most of the Kontradictions.
^ ^ ^
A succinct microcosm of campaigns and absence of evidence.
“(Just like Steve Landsburg was all alone during the Rush Limbaugh “slut” incident.)”
As I recall Bob that was our first spat here. I was defending Steve, you were bringing buses to Rochester. Ah, good times, good times.
Anyway this time we agree. Block was misrepresented, in print, by his titular leader, who had but did not avail himself of the chance to get it right.
Here is Block putting his quote in context on Lew Rockwell’s site:
“slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths”
1) The owners of Woolworths are not forced to associate with anyone. They don’t deal with customers.
2) Arguing that forcing a corporation that provides public accommodation to sell good and services to blacks is similar to slavery implies a racist attitude towards blacks. Is it really that horrible to have to take a black person’s money?
3) Nobody is forcing Woolworth to provide public accommodation for profit. They can close shop if associating with blacks is really that bad. Based on Block’s argument which ignores Woolworths’ freedom to walk away, you are a slave if you wind up sitting next to an ahole at a football game.
4) Forced association was hardly the only “real problem” with slavery. It’s fair to say that it was the most minor problem.
5) Under the segregation laws, lots of whites who wanted to associate with blacks were not able to associate with blacks. The Civil Rights gave these people the freedom to associate. Why no consideration of this by Block? Perhaps he has a hard time believing that any white person would chose to associate with blacks.
6) Block has a history of making provocative racial comments. Here he is on Sep 22, 2012 arguing that slavery is better than welfare for black communities. (dont’ bother pointing out that Sowell and Walter Willams say the same thing, that means nothing. They make their living parroting this tripe on behalf of white people).
Walter Block Says Slavery Is Better Than Welfare For African-American Communities
http://youtu.be/jEl7BJVNFq4
7) sing songs? Like a minstrel? This is a obvious dog whistle to racists.
8) If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
9) What does a person have to do in order to be called a racist by paleoconservatives? They seem to believe that you can make all kinds of derogatory statements about blacks but as long as you use some ideology or some cherry picked data (aka The Bell Curve book), then you’re merely telling the truth andanyone offended is being “politically correct.”
10) sack up and stop whining. You want to be politically incorrect, then you are going to offend people and get some blow back.
” Arguing that forcing a corporation that provides public accommodation to sell good and services to blacks is similar to slavery implies a racist attitude towards blacks. Is it really that horrible to have to take a black person’s money?”
No it doesn’t. It is perfectly possible to say “I don’t have the right to get involved.” I’m not endorsing that view, but it is quite common on this board. It could well be wrong, destructive, and crazy. But it’s not racist towards blacks. It’s not racist at all towards anyone. They equally would refuse to interfere with blacks who refuse white customers, tall people who refuse short custom, blondes who refuse to serve brunettes. The principle has zip to do with race.
Let’s keep in mind that Jim Crow began decades after the Civil War with GOVERNMENT DIKTATS using force to prohibit voluntary interaction between members of different “races”.
If the free market naturally led to such a result, what was the point of these horrible laws which went so far as prohibiting “mixed race” pool playing?
More intellectual dishonesty. Here is the full quote:
“Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to ‘associate’ with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths.”
I don’t think it is an accident that you deliberately started your quote at where you did.
I usually irritate my neo-liberal friends by bringing up slavery whenever they start to complain about unemployment being caused by capitalism. Something to the effect of, “You know, at one time in America, we had an entire race of people who enjoyed full employment!”
I think Block’s point is similar here (if made for different reasons). Taken in a vacuum, there are individual components of slavery that most people would love: guaranteed meaningful work, food and shelter provided for you, etc. But the fact that it’s involuntary transforms this situation into one of the worst horror-shows imaginary.
When people join the military, they willingly subject themselves to the equivalent of temporary slavery. You agree to essentially do whatever the government tells you to do. In fact, legally, you are their property. They can even modify the terms and length of your contract after the fact (you; however, cannot). In exchange, they provide all of your basic needs for free. Why do people see military service as a noble endeavor? A moral good? Because it’s voluntary (well, sometimes).
Forced association was hardly the only “real problem” with slavery. It’s fair to say that it was the most minor problem.
Uh oh! Joe’s a racist racist racist! He said that being chained up for life, unable to leave the plantation to visit one’s family and being forced to work for life with no pay was a “most minor problem”.
He said it. He said it. He said it! Neo-Confederate!
BTW, no libertarian EVER supported Jim Crow laws and every libertarian is able to easily distinguish between forced and voluntary segregation.
It would have been perfectly reasonable to remove segregation laws without also requiring forced association… but that never happened which might be why Block doesn’t spend a lot of time discussing it.
I might point out that if some states have more generous free association laws than others and if people have the freedom to leave their current situation then they can generally fix the problem for themselves. Which is more freedom than you offer to shopkeepers.
You claim that the forced association of slavery is just a minor issue, but the ability to help yourself out of a bad situation is the most valuable thing anyone can have.
Conflation of public and private is either a de facto power grab or an intentional power grab.
And what is up with this “you are free to close your business” nonsense?
Freedom is like, more freedom than that.
“Dear slave, you are free to kill youtself”
Makes great sense!
Actually not. Attempted suicide would be theft, just like it could be for slaves in Blocktopia.
Let’s not forget here that just because Block was smeared here he is still minimizing the horror of slavery – common amongst “Libertarians” alas.
It’s not minimizing slavery to refrain from over-exaggerating chattel slavery.
As horrible as slavery is, it’s not wrong to argue that it isn’t as bad as the exaggerated statements make it out to be.
As an example, if someone said chattel slavery is the worst thing that can ever be imposed on someone, and I believed I’d rather be a chattel slave than being tortured on a stock and pillory every day for the rest of my life, then it would not be unreasonable for me to say that slavery isn’t that bad.
To say something isn’t as bad as an arbitrary statement concerning that something, is not in any way minimizing it, let alone supporting it.
We don’t have to exaggerate something in order to voice our absolute opposition to that something. You and Gamble seem to have issues with getting that. Gamble is trying to convince people that Ayn Rand was pro-communism, to voice his displeasure with her atheism.
What libertarian has EVER minimized the horror of slavery, smart guy?
Walter Block, in the passage quoted, handsome guy.
(If you can be envious so can I)
Block didn’t say slavery was moral, but he did limn a portrait of the conditions that would have made Margaret Mitchell blush.
he is still minimizing the horror of slavery – common amongst “Libertarians” alas.
Really? You have quotes like that from many other libertarians?
The owners of Woolworths are not forced to associate with anyone. They don’t deal with customers.
The word ‘associate’ is used in a broader sence here.
Arguing that forcing a corporation that provides public accommodation to sell good and services to blacks is similar to slavery implies a racist attitude towards blacks.
If it only applied to selling to blacks, it would.
Based on Block’s argument which ignores Woolworths’ freedom to walk away, you are a slave if you wind up sitting next to an ahole at a football game.
Not at a football game, unless you own the stadium *and* your forbidden from making the guy leave.
Forced association was hardly the only “real problem” with slavery. It’s fair to say that it was the most minor problem.
Really? I’m curious to know what the real problem was then.
Under the segregation laws, lots of whites who wanted to associate with blacks were not able to associate with blacks.
Which was wrong too. I would be very surprised if Block would say otherwise.
The Civil Rights gave these people the freedom to associate. Why no consideration of this by Block. Perhaps he has a hard time believing that any white person would chose to associate with blacks.
Or perhaps he doesn’t talk about it because he doesn’t object to it.
sing songs? Like a minstrel?
http://www.themeister.co.uk/dixie/plantation_songs.htm
Not only whites in blackface can sing songs.
Joe doesn’t know what associate or degree mean. And he’s a meanie pants.
You can try harder to distort Libertarian views.
“The owners of Woolworths are not forced to associate with anyone. They don’t deal with customers.”
A specious argument. They are being forced to allow someone on their property against their wishes.
“Arguing that forcing a corporation that provides public accommodation to sell good and services to blacks is similar to slavery implies a racist attitude towards blacks.”
No, it implies simply that forcing someone to associate with another person against their wishes is a form of enslavement.
“Nobody is forcing Woolworth to provide public accommodation for profit.”
Business is not “public accommodation”. It is private property.
“Based on Block’s argument which ignores Woolworths’ freedom to walk away, you are a slave if you wind up sitting next to an ahole at a football game.”
You don’t own the football stadium. If the football stadium was legally barred from ejecting “aholes” that would amount to the same thing.
“Forced association was hardly the only “real problem” with slavery. It’s fair to say that it was the most minor problem.”
Uh, no. All the problems of slavery stem from forced association. If the slaves could leave… well, they would be employees! When was the last time you got whipped at work?
“Under the segregation laws, lots of whites who wanted to associate with blacks were not able to associate with blacks. The Civil Rights gave these people the freedom to associate. Why no consideration of this by Block?”
It is considered. No one is saying that the revocation of forced segregation is bad. Simply the other side of the coin – forced association – is just as bad. Believe it or not, if you submerge a house to put out a fire, the water damage isn’t good.
“Here he is on Sep 22, 2012 arguing that slavery is better than welfare for black communities.”
So what? That proposition could very well be true. It may be, from certain perspectives (as “better” is always subjective) that it is true. Certainly, the black family unit survived slavery better than it has current welfare laws. Who are you to say that there aren’t harms that occur to black communities due to welfare that are worse than the harms the communities suffered under slavery?
The rest is mere derogatory nonsense without any actual logic or basis, so I won’t address it.
The Loyola President is obvioisly behaving on the basis of acute fear, which is why his statements contain so many errors and flaws.
The joe must be terrified.
No mommy and daddy government? Some are more terrified than others. Joe makes only slightly more errors than you.
This thread has almost everything I could have hoped for, except Ken B. you haven’t made fun of my religious views yet. Still getting your coffee this morning? Or is this the one day a month when you work?
Thanks, I’ll be here all week folks.
Bob, like you I’m for freedom of association.
If you don’t want to force reason and evidence to associate with your religious beliefs I’m not not to compel you.
“Bob, like you I’m for freedom of association.”
Ken B, you need to do some more self-reflection, because you’re holding inconsistent beliefs here.
You can’t claim to be in favor of freedom of association, because freedom of association of course does not exclude freedom of disassociation. If we can’t disassociate from X, then we do not have the freedom to associate with only those not X.
As a self-professed minarchist, you do not believe in the freedom to disassociate from the minarchist state, and to instead associate oneself with protectors one chooses to associate with rather than the state.
Thus, you’re against freedom of association. To be in favor of freedom to associate with anyone who would agree to associate with you back…except the state, which is mandatory association, you’re not actually in favor of association.
MF when Ken B’s trying to be a pest, the least you can do is not analyze his quips at face value. Have some decency man!
Then I’ll never analyze anything he says at face value.
You never analyze anything I say MF. You only analyze what you pretend I say.
Those are called your premises Ken B, in which I analyze as nobody else is doing so.
I’m in favor of reading Hammett. Doesn’t mean I’m in favor of doing nothing but reading Hammett. There are lots of conflicting goals to be considered. Like many commenters I’m in favor of candor and civility; discussing your posts presents dilemmas there.
Ken B:
Seems you don’t want to force logical consistency into your beliefs.
MF,
I see what you did there. As soon as I I looked past your robotic logic mantra, I saw your quip about freedom to disassociate. Very clever.
MF exercises the freedom to dissociate.
We all do Ken B, to varying degrees.
For you, even with the internet at your fingertips, which can help you reconcile your problems in logic and ethics, you are choosing to exercise some form of detachment from your immediate surroundings. Going further, you emotionally and psychologically detach yourself from the horrors unleashed through territorial monopolies of protection. Murphy’s blog posts are apparently a bigger evil than murder. “You are the same!”. Perhaps, but I’m not foolish enough to believe I never choose to dissociate.
Just to illustrate the nature of the horror MF is talking about, here’s the link again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-25721545
Canadian cops were they Eduardo? Swiss?
Remember Ipperwash?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipperwash_Crisis
I do. The cop involved was charged, convicted, and jailed.
I submit that all of these pathetic attacks on us and our ideas are quite useful and helpful, similar to Rudy Giuliani’s attack on Ron Paul regarding blowback as described by Chris Rossini:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/09/chris-rossini/the-blowback-neocons-fear/
Any newbie who has a general understanding of our ideas can see that our opponents are simply not addressing the gist of our positions but are distorting them, apparently because they feel that the truth would only further help our cause.
First they ignore you, then they fight you,….
It’s also worth pointing out that Block has recently changed his reason for opposing slavery.
On Oct 9, 2013, Block said the ONLY problem with slavery is that it violated freedom of association. Now on Jan 30, 2014, he says it violated the law of free association, AND that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons.
Anyone want to explain why he added “private property right in their own person” since Oct 2013? Seems like he is making it up as he goes along.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/10/a-walter-block-email-to-leader-of.html
“I go so far as to say that the only problem with pre 1861 slavery was that it violated freedom of association. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. They gave you gruel. You could pick cotton (good exercize). They gave you free room and board. The ONLY problem with slavery is that it violated a principle precious to libertarianism: freedom of assocation. The right to pick and choose who you associate with. And, yet, this is PRECISELY the right taken away from Woolworths, when they were forced to associate with those who they didn’t want to assocate with. By the way, would you force a black storeowner to serve a KKK member?”
January 30, 2014
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/walter-e-block/scurrilous-libelous-venomous/
“Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to ‘associate’ with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths.”
“Anyone want to explain why he added “private property right in their own person” since Oct 2013?”
Given that the former is a subset of the latter (i.e. you have freedom of association because your right to your person allows you to decide where it is), it really doesn’t matter.
It matters to trolls and the mentally feeble.
He’s making a point about what freedom of association actually entails. There are different ways of making a point, and some are more oblique than others. I could for instance note that if severed your head would float.
Don’t some Rothbardians believe in debt peonage?
Dear Bob, and many others:
Thanks for your support.
Best regards,
Walter
2/10/14
To whom it may concern:
Below are two letters that appeared in the Letters to the Editor page of the Maroon, the student newspaper for Loyola University New Orleans (page 10, February 7, 2014).
Anyone who writes a letter of support for (or, to be fair, in criticism of) Walter Block please consider sending it to
pres@loyno.edu (Fr. Wildes, SJ, president of Loyola U)
lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu (authors of second letter)
letter@loyno.edu (letters to the editor of the Maroon)
and copy Walter Block on this letter or letters: wblock@loyno.edu
you could also go to the bottom of the page here:
http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6713/letter-faculty-says-walter-block-s-claims-were-once-again-untrue-and-offensive-1.2854769#.UvaP6bex6M8
and/or here:
http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6713/letter-walter-block-has-made-too-many-assumptions-and-contradictions-1.2854765#.UvaMsbex6M8
to add your comment(s), in case the Maroon does not print your letter to the editor
Here is Block’s response to the New York Times article (see the link to that inside) which started off this latest controversy:
Block, Walter E. 2014. “Reply to the Scurrilous, Libelous, Venomous, Scandalous New York Times Smear Campaign.” January 30; http://www.lewrockwell.com/?post_type=article&p=473740&preview=true; http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/walter-e-block/scurrilous-libelous-venomous/; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/01/walter-block-how-nyt-mischaracterized.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29; http://libertycrier.com/scurrilous-libelous-venomous/; http://libertycrier.com/scurrilous-libelous-venomous/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LibertyCrier+%28Liberty+Crier%29; http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/1wm4l1/you_must_hear_tom_woods_commentary_the_antitruth/; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V5GwxkanD4; http://tomwoods.com/blog/on-handling-a-new-york-times-reporter/; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/outrage-if-only-walter-block-was.html; http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060927.pdf; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/outrage-if-only-walter-block-was.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29; http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/04/libertarian-wants-help-suing-nyt-for-libel-over-accurately-quoted-remarks-on-slavery/; http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/us/politics/rand-pauls-mixed-inheritance.html?hp&_r=4
Here is Block’s response to an earlier unfair criticism of his views, alluded to at the end of letter II (The Loyola Diversity Task Force found Block guilty of racism and sexism):
http://mises.org/MultiMedia/Block/Block_03-25-2009.wmv
Letter I:
Wildes, Kevin. 2014. “Letter: Walter Block has made too many assumptions and contradictions.” February 6; http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6713/letter-walter-block-has-made-too-many-assumptions-and-contradictions-1.2854765#.UvaMsbex6M8
Dear Editors,
One of our goals as an academic institution is to encourage people to cultivate critical thinking. You can imagine my dismay when reading the Sunday New York Times and I found remarks by Dr. Walter Block.
In the Jan. 25 article “Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance”, Dr. Block made two claims, one empirical and one conceptual, that are simply wrong. First, he made the claim that chattel slavery “was not so bad.” “Bad” is a comparative measure that, like every comparison, is understood in a contrast set. My initial question was where is the evidence?
Dr. Block makes an assertion but gives no evidence for his assertion. Furthermore, it is also conceptually contradictory to his position as a libertarian that people could be treated as property against their will. So, by even hinting to endorse slavery enforced against someone’s free will, Dr. Block seems to contradict his basic libertarian principles.
His second claim is an example of a fundamental logical mistake. In peaking of discriminatory lunch counters, Dr. Block makes the mistake of assuming that because of the Civil Rights legislation people would be compelled to associate with others against their will. The Civil Rights legislation did no such thing.
What the Civil Rights legislation did was prevent places like Woolworth’s from excluding people because of their race. No one was forced to sit at the lunch counter. The law simply made clear that people could not be excluded from the lunch counter because of their race.
If these remarks were made in a paper for my class, I would return the paper with a failing grade. This is hardly critical thinking. Rather it is a position filled with assertions, without argument or evidence, to gain attention.
Sincerely yours,
Kevin Wm. Wildes, S.J., Ph.D.
President
Letter II:
Murphy, Laura, Anthony E. Ladd, Barbara Ewell, Charles Corprew, Laura Hope, Kathleen Fitzgerald, Angel Parham, Ashley Howard, Trimiko Melancon, Alex Mukulich, Patricia Boyett, Julie Thibodaux, Nicole Eggers, Ted Quant, Susan Weishar, Alvaro Alcazar, Lisa Martin, Judith Hunt. 2014. “Letter: Faculty says Walter Block’s claims were, once again, untrue and offensive.” February 6; http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6713/letter-faculty-says-walter-block-s-claims-were-once-again-untrue-and-offensive-1.2854769#.UvaP6bex6M8
2/6/14
Dear Editors,
As Loyola faculty members in the African and African American Studies program, Center for Intercultural Understanding, Twomey Center and Jesuit Social Research Institute programs at the forefront of Loyola’s longstanding dedication to racial and social justice, we have devoted ourselves to teaching students about the violence, cruelty, and humiliation inflicted upon black people during the more than four centuries of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and the civil rights movement and the legacy of that injustice today. Given this commitment, we are outraged over the views espoused by Loyola economics professor Walter Block in a recent New York Times article. In a Jan. 25, front-page story on the libertarian political philosophy of Sen. Rand Paul, Block not only attacks the legitimacy and constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act but also dismisses the institution of slavery as “not so bad.”
While Block might have the academic freedom to teach such ahistorical and hostile beliefs in his own economics classroom, these claims — expressed to a reporter for a nationwide newspaper article — are an insult to millions of African Americans in this country as well as to the pain and suffering incurred by both black and white people in their struggle to gain the same basic American freedoms that Professor Block enjoys today as a privileged white male.
Indeed, Dr. Block might educate himself on the reality of American slavery beyond his understanding that the lack of free association was the major problem with slavery.
“The slaves could not quit. They were forced to ‘associate’ with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory,” said Block in his “Reply to the Scurrilous, Libelous, Venomous, Scandalous New York Times Smear Campaign” on LewRockwell.com
Significant scholarship on slavery illuminates quite a different experience and set of problems related to slavery. Traders in human flesh kidnapped men, women and children from the interior of the African continent and marched them in stocks to the coast. Snatched from their families, these individuals awaited an unknown but decidedly terrible future. Often for as long as three months enslaved people sailed west, shackled and mired in the feces, urine, blood and vomit of the other wretched souls on the boat. For many, their desperation became so deep, they deemed suicide and infanticide as viable alternatives to a life of enslavement. After arriving in North America, labor, coercion and violence always occupied the same space.
While the lack of free association did indeed characterize antebellum slavery in the U.S., the ownership of humans as property is merely one of the incontrovertibly unacceptable aspects of slavery. The violation of human dignity, the radical exploitation of people’s labor, the brutal violence that slaveholders utilized to maintain power, the disenfranchisement of American citizens, the destruction of familial bonds, the pervasive sexual assault and the systematic attempts to dehumanize an entire race all mark slavery as an intellectually, economically, politically and socially condemnable institution no matter how, where, or when it is practiced.
At a time when Loyola University New Orleans is working diligently to recruit every qualified freshman student it can attract and enroll this fall, Block’s indefensible comments, printed in the national edition of the Sunday New York Times no less, hampers the university’s efforts to recruit the most accomplished and diverse students it can from across the U.S.
Moreover, this is not the first time that his disregard for socio-historical truth has proven to be an embarrassment to many of the faculty at this institution.
We the undersigned urge the university to take the long overdue and necessary steps to condemn and censure Professor Block for his recurring public assaults on the values of Loyola University, its mission and the civil rights of all Americans. In so doing, Loyola University must reaffirm our commitment to pursue truth, wisdom and virtue — and most importantly to work for a more just world.
THIS LETTER TO THE EDITOR WAS SUBMITTED BY:
Laura Murphy
Chair of the African and African American Studies Program
Assistant Professor of English
Anthony E. Ladd
Professor of Sociology
Barbara Ewell
Professor of English
Charles Corprew
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Laura Hope
Associate Professor of Theater
Kathleen Fitzgerald
Visiting Associate Professor of Sociology
Angel Parham
Associate Professor of Sociology
Ashley Howard
Assistant Professor of History
Trimiko Melancon
Assistant Professor of English
Alex Mukulich
Jesuit Social Research Institute
Patricia Boyett
Visiting Assistant Professor of History
Julie Thibodaux, J.D.
Interim Director,
Women’s Resource Center
Nicole Eggers
Assistant Professor of History
Ted Quant,
Director, Twomey Center
for Peace and Justice
Susan Weishar
Jesuit Social Research Institute
Alvaro Alcazar
Twomey Center and Loyola Institute for Ministry
Lisa Martin
Director, Center for Intercultural Understanding
Department of Communications
Judith Hunt,
Associate Dean,
College of Humanities and Natural Sciences Department of History
Hmmph. At Duke they got 88 fascist buffoons to sign hate mail. I guess Loyola isn’t top tier.
Nowhere in any of this do any of you acknowledge the real horrors of slavery. It wasn’t just the forced labor or the crappy food. For thousands of slaves, beatings were a constant fact of life. For thousands of female slaves rape was a given. And if you hated your “massa” the only way out was to die. Running away only worked for a small percentage, and the ones who got caught found their lives far worse than before — if they weren’t just killed.
As a woman, it offends me that any of you think the violation of a woman’s right to choose who she wants to have sex with is OK in any way shape or form. So to say slavery was okay gives tacit approval to rape.
Mr. Block and any of the rest of you who think slavery was somehow just a minor inconvenience should subject yourselves to the real conditions that slaves were subjected to. Live in a drafty shack during the coldest months of the winter with only a fire to keep you warm. Toil long hours in the hottest days of summer with someone beating you if you dare rest.
Maybe, just maybe, you ivory tower-dwellers will wake up to reality — and maybe, just maybe, they’ll discover that you actually have a heart, too.
I’m emailing you to clarify. Nobody believes that.
Karen,
Again, Walter Block NEVER said, simply, that
“Slavery is (or was) No Big Deal.”
What he said to the reporter was aside fr
The many respects in which slavery
Violates the non aggression principle, slavery
Was not so bad.
The NYT reporter with whom Walter Block spoke
At length explaining this deliberately
Omitted Walter’s comment concerning
the non-aggression principle so as
to have a more interesting story. The Dean of
Loyola – supposedly a Christian and man
Of the cloth, etc., – then decided to jump
aboard the bandwagon of misrepresentation.
Of course Walter DOES agree that slavery
is horrible because it does violate the non aggression
Principle as does RAPE.
Sadly, the Dean is a craven coward who
refuses to admit his error and apologize.
Regardless, Karen, you have a friend in Walter
Block – no matter what the Dean or
Other faculty members may tell you.
Sincerely,
James Hines